seaport.navy.mil

1. www.seaport.navy.mil Partnering Meeting

2. Agenda • Awarded Task Orders • Future work • Ombudsman Process • Questions • Portal Developments • Parking

3. Task Orders Awarded to Date

4. GRC JJMA Lockheed Martin Logicon TMASC UII / Zimmerman* ADI * ANADAC ANTEON BAE CRC* CSC EG&G Awarded Task Orders 13 of 21 MAC Prime Contractors have been awarded at least one Task Order

5. SEAPORT Processing Time(Data as of 05 December 2001) The length of time on average to award a task order has increased to 41 days. This overall increase is primarily driven by an increase in the time associated with evaluation of proposals and the time for processing the task order award since FY 02. This increase is attributable to requiring codes spending longer to make an award determination due to increased lead time/less urgency to make an immediate award and the unavailability of FY 02 funding.

6. Procurements in Process(as of 05 DEC)

7. Upcoming Requirements

8. Access to Information • CDMS Access to awarded task orders • Task Order Award Report • Upcoming Requirements

9. Questions

10. Ombudsman Discussion Captain Lynn Simon

11. Solicitation Releases • Numerous concerns about late Friday release of solicitations. • SeaPort office has established a weekly cut-off of 2:00 P.M. Friday for release of solicitations. Only exception will be for a legitimate urgent requirement. • Attempting to block release of solicitations from 2:00 21 December through 02 January.

12. Solicitation Releases • Recommendation to “establish a periodic release of solicitations say Tuesday by 1300” • Impractical to establish such a limited schedule due to unpredictable workload and volume of work being processed • Will attempt to time release of solicitations for early in the week, rather than the later part.

13. LOE in Solicitations • Will NAVSEA include a specific level of effort with all task orders? Some Tos have been released with only “Lot 1” as a required LOE in Section B. This severely restricts competition since only the incumbent knows what makes up “Lot 1.” • Some program offices have desired to move away from an LOE and towards a completion approach for PSS. In these cases the solicitations have only and will continue to show “1 Lot”. However, NAVSEA will include an LOE estimate as part of the solicitation to provide more information to potential offerors as soon as that information is available (historical data is not always readily accessible).

14. Incumbents • Several questions are always asked as to incumbency status in the Q&A period of the solicitation process. Will NAVSEA consider providing incumbency information as a standard part of the solicitation to solve this problem? • NAVSEA will provide the name of the incumbent and/or indicate that the work has not been previously performed as part of the solicitation package.

15. Proposal Requirements • The Section L Proposal Preparation Instructions specify that the electronic proposal is to be submitted in MS Word and MS Excel format. However, the Section B, H and K fill-in sections of the solicitation are provided in Adobe PDF format. Does the government want these sections to be converted and submitted in MS Word format, or does it want them submitted in Adobe PDF format? • There is no requirement to duplicate Sections B or H. The information that would normally be filled-in should be included as part of the proposal. Section K is available in word format on www.seaport.navy.mil.

16. Number of Past Performance References • The solicitations typically require that a number of Past Performance references be submitted as part of the response. Is the specified number of Past Performance references (usually 3 or 5) intended to be the minimum, the maximum, or the exact number desired by the government? • The number specified in the solicitation is the number companies should submit. If a solicitation gives a range, any number in that range is acceptable.

17. Proposal Page Limits • Industry must comply with the Section L page, font, and margin constraints in their Technical Capabilities and Experience submissions. At times, the RFP SOW exceeds the page limit for the response. Consequently, vendors must make a conscious decision as to which SOW points to address and which to omit based on the Section L constraints. Can any relief be provided such as a prioritized listing of SOW paragraphs in order of importance so that vendors can address the more important points?

18. Proposal Page Limits (cont.) • We will attempt to highlight in Section L areas within the SOW that are of particular interest and importance. • Solicitations should allow for at least as many pages for industry response as the SOW. Note: some companies appear to have been equating word count in an SOW to importance. That is not always an indicator of importance. Different sections of the SOW are frequently drafted by different people who vary in degree of specificity and verbosity.

19. Proposal Requirements • Price proposals for FFP bids are quite complex. Will NAVSEA consider reducing these to simply the firm fixed price for the deliverables proposed? • In reference to the solicitations that are either completely, or partially, Firm-Fixed-Price, why is the Government asking for supporting cost data with respect to the Firm-Fixed-Price option periods? We believe that requiring contractors to provide supporting cost data when a Firm-Fixed-Price proposal is being solicited is unnecessary, and also is inconsistent with the objectives of performance-based contracting.

20. Proposal Requirements (cont.) • Offerors should comply with the requirements set forth in the task order solicitation. • We will limit proposal requirements for completely FFP to a top level labor mix and ODCs. • We will limit proposal requirements for items converting from Cost type to just the proposed FFP.

21. Proposal Requirements • Recommend that the use of charts and tables be submitted in the technical responses. • Simple charts and tables will be permitted as part of the technical proposal. Charts and tables should be legible within standard Microsoft Office products (excluding MS project). Charts and tables are part of, not in addition to, the page limit.

22. Future Workload Planning • Will NAVSEA publish a list of expected opportunities? A list of expected opportunities would allow contractors to plan for an upcoming task order and take the steps necessary to be prepared for its release, i.e. familiarize themselves with the NAVSEA organization, understand current emphasis/programs, etc.  Most importantly, since most of the TOs to date have a strong focus on personnel, advanced notice of these opportunities would time to select the strongest candidates for the proposal.  Given the usual short response times, it is difficult to respond to the TOs with appropriate resumes.  

23. Future Workload Planning (cont.) • NAVSEA will release the best information we have about forecasted workload. • Possible mediums for provision of this information • CDMS File • Open Bid Event as part of Auction Services • Calendar function on publicly available web page

24. 30 Day notification of task order release Standard release of Incumbency and LOE Standard 3 day Q&A with 2 day response Standardized Resume and Past Performance format. We will share the best forecast data we have. Will provide the best information available. We will attempt to include these timeframes in future solicitations. We don’t specify a format. Contractors are encouraged to use standardized formats. Recommendations on Existing Process

25. SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING • The solicitation for the MAC contracts required large business firms to provide their Small Business Subcontracting Plans to be incorporated into their prime contracts. Would you please review, at the conference, the specific small business subcontracting requirements for large MAC contract holders. Also, please report on the progress these firms are making in fulfilling their small business subcontracting requirements.

26. SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING (cont.) • Each MAC contract with a large business has a subcontracting plan included in the contract. (Average small business subcontracting goal is 35%) • Standard reporting requirements (SF 294/295) • Will be evaluated as part of PPAIS. • Will be a basis for decision to exercise options.

27. SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING (cont.) Larger/integrated task orders, • Individual solicitations may contain specific small business subcontracting requirements. • Subcontracting goals will be developed in consultation with SEA 00K based on current experience on that effort or a comparable effort. • Task Level subcontracting plans

28. Split Awards • We have seen two Task Orders awarded with each award going to two separate companies. The RFPs did not indicate that there were going to be multiple awards. Knowing this in advance allows a contractor to bid only on a portion of the work they are competent in and not the entire package, thus providing the Navy with the best company to perform the work, even though there would be multiple awards. Can the Government arbitrarily award multiple awards under what appears to be a single award RFP?

29. Split Awards (cont.) • Section L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS • Unless otherwise specified in the solicitation, the Offeror may propose to provide any item or combination of items. • The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit cost or prices offered, unless the Offeror specifies otherwise in the proposal. • The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards if, after considering the additional administrative costs, it is in the Government's best interest to do so.

30. Split Awards (cont.) • Two split awards to date were not known to be split awards at the on-set. • Solicitations will be flagged where there is a high potential that more than one award will be made.

31. Cycle Time • The Task Orders were set-up to become a quick turn-around method of contracting for both the Government and Industry. The contractors were told that awards would normally be made five (5) working days after the proposal was received. The contractors have responded to the Government's quick turn-around response time identified in the RFP with minimal extensions. However, the Government has not been as quick in turning around awards. Please elaborate. If the quality of the submission is an issue, it may be prudent to allow for additional preparation time on the contractor's behalf.

32. Cycle Time (cont.) • Proposal quality experienced to date has been very high and has not contributed to the delay in award. • Award determinations have slowed significantly in FY 02. • SeaPort office is establishing schedules with longer response times. • If additional time is needed, submit a request.

33. Cycle Time • Request NAVSEA extend the turn-around time on TOs to a minimum of five days, to allow time to adequately select personnel candidates and prepare a response • NAVSEA will allow a minimum of five days to respond to solicitations.

34. Impact of Prior Experience on Award Determination • Based on awards to date, and from a contractor perspective, there appears to be limited consideration of total price in the selection process. One can only surmise that is a result of a very high premium being placed on incumbency and therefore specific Program Office experience rather than equivalent similar experience in the functional support areas. If it is the intent to place very high emphasis on incumbency (specific experience) in the selection process for certain delivery orders, would NAVSEA consider stating that explicitly and strongly as part of the solicitation to aid competing contractor teams in their bid decision process?

35. Impact of Prior Experience on Award Determination (cont.) • Sections L & M specify the level of expertise expected. • Interested in seeing quality proposals from all qualified sources (no preferred sourcing) • Incumbents have lost work • Healthy competition even when incumbents have won

36. Use of Industry Briefs • To date, only one SEAPORT solicitation (PMS440) has had an industry day during which the technical code provided information to industry regarding its needs. Can NAVSEA encourage and offer more industry days for major procurements to provide industry with a better definition of its requirements? • SeaPort will advocate the use of more informational briefings to industry.

37. Draft Solicitations • The few Draft SOWs that have been released are very informative and the practice should be continued. However for the drafts to be truly effective they should contain additional information such as a definitive LOE and personnel requirements. • We try to include the best information we have available when we release drafts. Based on this feedback, we will put forth a more focused effort to have information in those areas.

38. Solicitation Release • Is it possible to send solicitations to both Prime Contractors and approved Subcontractors? • Auction services provides an automated notification to all registered users, including subcontracts.

39. Number of Offers Received • Please list how many offers were received on the weekly task order report? • We will not be releasing this information to all companies. This information will continue to be provided as part of the award notification to companies submitting a proposal in response to a solicitation.

40. Award Determination • While certain Task Orders have invoked Clause H-11 the Solicitation’s Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award) have not referenced the Prime SeaPort Contract. How are Task Order bids being evaluated in the context of prime contract goals and bid parameters? • Task order awards are made in accordance with the H-7 Orders clause and Section M of the individual task orders. Contractors remain fully responsible for complying with the terms and conditions of their contracts (e.g., guaranteed savings and small business subcontracting).

41. Technical Capabilities • One of the announced objectives of the SeaPort process was to minimize the requirement to provide corporate capabilities, résumés, and past performance cites in response to task order solicitations. The information provided in Tables A and B of the basic proposal was supposed to mitigate the need to include this type of information in task order proposals. Is SeaPort still working toward reducing these requirements and streamlining proposals, in furtherance of its stated performance based contracting objective?

42. Technical Capabilities (cont.) • The information reviewed as part of the MAC contract award process focused on obtaining a universe of highly qualified contractors. However, not all contractors are equally qualified to perform every tasks. To factor specific expertise into award determinations, it is necessary to request certain information regarding capabilities. We are attempting to minimize these requirements and invite any suggestions for further streamlining.

43. Grouping Similar Requirements • There have been numerous relatively small task order solicitations on the order of a few man-years per year. Additionally, there have been multiple small solicitations for support to the same Program Office customer and many for similar functional support areas. It appears that the rapid solicitation and award process has resulted in dividing what might have been grouped requirement solicitations in the past by the lowest common denominator. This will and is resulting in higher contract administration costs per man year of direct support as well as not promoting long term overall Government/Broad

44. Grouping Similar Requirements (cont.) • (cont.) Contractor team partnering, both of which were stated goals of the SeaPort MAC concept. WillNAVSEA consider promoting a more grouped requirement concept with the Program Offices to not only achieve the benefits discussed above but also reduce the number of individual solicitations that need to be developed, bid on, and processed? • We recognize the additional administrative burden associated with segregating requirements and are seeking opportunities to consolidate requirements where appropriate. We are working with program offices to improve planning to facilitate that aggregation.

45. Award Determinations • The Government has specifically avoided the use of formal “debriefs” in SeaPort Task Order Awards. Would the government consider making “Award Determinations” a standard feedback loop for all primes who choose to bid on a Task Order? • Under FAR Part 16, the Government is not required to provide any information regarding task order awards. However, SeaPort will continue to respond to requests for feedback on a company’s proposal and the basis for award.

46. Award Determinations • To date, debriefs have provided limited information compared to previous experience with NAVSEA. Does NAVSEA plan to expand the amount of discussion and feedback over the amount currently being provided as single page write-ups? • Given the volume of work being processed through SeaPort, it is unlikely we will be in a position to expand upon the current format. If there is specific information that would be beneficial to see in the award determinations, please make that recommendation. In addition if there is a specific question or clarification that a prime has about an award determination, they should contact the PCO via email or telephone and we will make every effort to get you a timely response.

47. Rolling Admissions • Do you anticipate an open season for new Prime Contract awards within the next year? Are there currently any new Prime Contractors being considered for award or changes in Prime Contractor - Subcontractor relationships (i.e. where a Subcontractor assumes the Prime Contract?) • Rolling Admissions will be evaluated in the February/March timeframe. Based on the criteria in the contract, there is currently no indication that it will be beneficial to the Government to re-open admissions.

48. Guaranteed Savings • GUARANTEED SAVINGS Please discuss the guaranteed reduction clause as it pertains to the reduction required for the FFP years after the initial CPFF year. As it is currently interpreted by the SEAPORT Office the contractor is currently not allowed to apply any escalation factor to the FFP years before taking the reduction. This results in a reduction in real dollars for the "out-years" significantly greater than stipulated in the guaranteed reduction clause. For example - If the guaranteed reduction clause requires a 5% reduction and the escalation factor is 4% annually, the real reduction is 9%.

49. Guaranteed Savings (cont.) • Conscious decision to have net reduction from prior year (consistent with calculation of wedge savings) • Clause H-11 specifically states: applies to “substantially identical requirements in subsequent years” “contractor agrees to the maximum extent practicable to reduce the price for services performed under each sequential year...”(emphasis added) “% Reductions from base period or price from previous year”

50. Guaranteed Savings • The Industry Briefs prior to SeaPort award implied that the first year CPFF contract phase would be used to “set the baseline” prior to imposition of the H-11 clause. To date industry has been required to provide FFP bids for out year work with the understanding, under certain Task Orders, that the Statement of Work would be adjusted, one year into the performance of the T.O., to reflect a subsequent negotiation between the government and industry. This approach